When writing about women on Wikipedia, make sure the content and titles do not use sexist language or promote sexist stereotypes.

Women are thought to comprise between 8.5[1] and 16.1[2] percent of editors on the English Wikipedia. This means that most articles are written by men, as are most of the content policies, including the notability and referencing policies. Those policies determine which articles about women can be hosted and frame how they are written.

The combined effect of personnel and policy is the gender imbalance of our content. As of 5 March 2018, 267,241 biographies on the English Wikipedia were about women (17.49%) out of 1,527,862 overall.[3] As a result of sourcing and notability issues, almost all biographies before 1900 are of men.[a] Achieving gender balance, diversity and fairness is in the interests of all editors and readers. This page may help to identify the subtle and more obvious ways in which titles, language, images and linking practices on the English Wikipedia can discriminate against women.

Avoid language and images that make male the Self and female the Other.[5] Researchers have found that Wikipedia articles about women are more likely to contain words such as woman, female and lady, than articles about men are to contain the male equivalents. This suggests that editors see male as the default or null gender, and that biographies are assumed to be of men unless otherwise stated.[6][7]

Avoid labelling a woman as a female author or female politician, unless her gender is explicitly relevant to the article. In April 2013 several media stories noted that editors on the English Wikipedia had begun moving women from Category:American novelists to Category:American women novelists, while leaving men in the main category.[8][9] Linguists call this markedness. Treating a man who is a writer as a "writer" and a woman as a "woman writer" presents women as "marked", or the Other, requiring an adjective to differentiate them from the male default.[10]

Use caution when referring to a woman by her first name, which can serve to infantilize her.[b] As a rule, after the initial introduction ("Susan Smith is an Australian anthropologist"), refer to women by their surnames ("Smith is the author of ..."). Here is an example of the inappropriate use of a woman's first name.

First names are sometimes needed for clarity. For example, when writing about a family with the same surname, after the initial introductions they can all be referred to by first names. A first name might also be used when a surname is long and double-barreled, and its repetition would be awkward to read and write. When a decision is made to use first names for editorial reasons, use them for both women and men.

[T]he Bechdel-inspired Finkbeiner-test about scientific women ... mention[s] that an article about a woman does not pass the test if it mentions "How she's the 'first woman to ....'" Despite being informal, the Finkbeiner-test raises awareness on how gender becomes more important than the actual achievements of a person.

According to Graells-Garrido et al. (2015), the lead is a "good proxy for any potential biases expressed by Wikipedia contributors".[13] The lead may be the only part of an article that is read—especially on mobile devices—so pay close attention to how women are described there. Again, giving women "marked" treatment can convey subtle assumptions to readers.

Avoid language that places being a woman ahead of the subject's achievements. Opening the lead with "A was the first woman to do X" or "A was the first female X" immediately defines her in terms of men who have done the same thing, and it can inadvertently imply: "She may not have been a very good X, but at least she was the first woman."[12] When prioritizing that the subject is a "first woman", make sure it really is the only notable thing about her. Otherwise start with her own position or accomplishments.

For example, as of 10 March 2015, Wikipedia described Russian chemist Anna Volkova solely in terms of four first-woman benchmarks.[14] But the biographies of Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher, as of the same date, began with the positions they held, and only then said that they were the first or only women to have held them.[15]

Infoboxes are an important source of metadata (see DBpedia) and a source of discrimination against women. For example, the word spouse is more likely to appear in a woman's infobox than in a man's.[16]

When writing about a woman who works, or has worked, as a model, consider avoiding {{Infobox model}}. It includes parameters for hair and eye colour and previously contained parameters for bust, hip, waist size and weight. The latter were removed in March 2016 following this discussion. If you add an infobox (they are not required), consider using {{Infobox person}} instead.

Wherever possible, avoid defining a notable woman, particularly in the title or first sentence, in terms of her relationships (wife/mother/daughter of). Do not begin a biography with: "Susan Smith is the daughter of historian Frank Smith and wife of actor John Jones. She is known for her work on game theory." An example of the kind of title the Wikipedia community has rejected is Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) (now a redirect to Sarah Jane Brown).

Researchers have found that Wikipedia articles about women are more likely to discuss their family, romantic relationships, and sexuality, while articles about men are more likely to contain words about cognitive processes and work. This suggests that Wikipedia articles are objectifying women.[17][c] Women's biographies mention marriage and divorce more often than men's biographies do.[19] Biographies that refer to the subject's divorce are 4.4 times more likely to be about a woman on the English Wikipedia. The figures are similar on the German, Russian, Spanish, Italian and French Wikipedias.[d]

[T]he greater frequency and burstiness of words related to cognitive mechanisms in men, as well as the more frequent words related to sexuality in women, may indicate a tendency to objectify women in Wikipedia. ... [M]en are more frequently described with words related to their cognitive processes, while women are more frequently described with words related to sexuality. In the full biography text, the cognitive processes and work concerns categories are more bursty in men biographies, meaning that those aspects of men's lives are more important than others at the individual level."[12]

A woman's relationships are inevitably discussed prominently when essential to her notability, but try to focus on her own notable roles or accomplishments first. For example, consider starting articles about women who were First Lady of the United States, which is a significant role, with "served as First Lady of the United States from [year] to [year]", followed by a brief summary of her achievements, rather than "is/was the wife of President X".

When discussing a woman who is married to a man, write "A is married to B" instead of "A is the wife of B", which casts the male as possessor. Avoid the expression "man and wife", which generalizes the husband and marks the wife. Do not refer to a woman as Mrs. John Smith; when using an old citation that does this, try to find and use the woman's own name, as in: "Susan Smith (cited as Mrs. J. Smith)".

When introducing a woman as the parent of an article subject, avoid the common construction, "Smith was born in 1960 to John Smith and his wife, Susan." Consider whether there is an editorial reason to begin with the father's name. If not, try "Susan Jones and her husband, John Smith" or, if the woman has taken her husband's name, "Susan Smith, née Jones, and her husband, John", or "Susan and John Smith". Where there are several examples of "X and spouse" in an article, alternate the order of male and female names.

The focus on relationships in articles about women affects internal linking and therefore search-engine results. One study found that women on Wikipedia are more linked to men than men are linked to women. When writing an article about a woman, if you include an internal link to an article about a man, consider visiting the latter to check that it includes reciprocal information about the relationship; if it merits mention in the woman's article, it is likely germane to his. Failure to mention the relationship in both can affect search algorithms in a way that discriminates against women.[e]

Do not refer to human beings as man or mankind. Sentences such as "man has difficulty in childbirth" illustrate that these are not inclusive generic terms.[22] Depending on the context, use humanity, humankind, human beings, women and men, or men and women.

Some will set the Cart before the horse, as thus. My mother and my father are both at home, as though the good man of the house did weare no breches, or that the graie Mare were the better Horse. And what though it often so happeneth (God wot the more pitty) yet in speaking at the least, let vs keepe a naturall order, and set the man before the woman for maners sake.

The order in which groups are introduced—man and woman, male and female, Mr. and Mrs., husband and wife, brother and sister, ladies and gentlemen—has implications for their status, so consider alternating the order as you write.[24]

The use of the generic he (masculine pronouns such as he, him, his) is increasingly avoided in sentences that might refer to women and men or girls and boys.[27] Instead of "each student must hand in his assignment", try one of the following.

Rewrite the sentence in the plural: "students must hand in their assignments."

Use feminine pronouns: "each student must hand in her assignment." This is often done to signal the writer's rejection of the generic he,[28] the "linguistic equivalent of affirmative action".[29] See WP:HER.

Alternate between the masculine and feminine in different paragraphs or sections.[29]

Rewrite the sentence to remove the pronoun: "student assignments must be handed in."

Write out the alternatives—he or she, him or her, his or her; him/her, his/her.

Use the plural even when referring to singular nouns or pronouns. This is known as the singular they: "each student must hand in their assignment". It is most often used with someone, anyone, everyone, no one.[31]

Take caution when using sources with a predominantly male audience (such as AskMen, Playboy, and Maxim) in biographies of women. Consider whether the information constitutes due weight, and be careful not to include trivia that appeals predominantly to men.

A source doesn't have to be overtly sexist to set a bad example. For example most women are underrepresented in certain institutions that are slow to change, such as educational institutions or museums. Often such institutions can be fine to use as a source for white males, but for women, not so much.

Avoid images that objectify women. In particular, do not use pornography images in articles that are not about pornography. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images states that "photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy".

Except when the topic is necessarily tied to it (examples: downblouse and upskirt), avoid examples of male-gaze imagery, where women are presented as objects of heterosexual male appreciation.[32] When adding an image of part of a woman's body, consider cropping the image to focus on that body part.

When illustrating articles about women's health and bodies, use authoritative medical images wherever possible. Make sure the images accurately represent the topic and would not mislead readers. Be particularly careful when using "before and after" images that purport to show the benefits of a particular treatment. Check that the images really do show the same woman and that the source of the images can be trusted.

^Graells-Garrido, Lalmas and Menczer (2015): "Of the set of 1,445,021 biographies (articles in the DBPedia Person class), only 15.5% are about women ... Before 1900 almost all biographies were about men, indicating that the presence of women among historical figures is biased."[4]

^Milman (2014): "More stylistic choices by journalists further contributed to the paternalistic construction of the [Mothers' movement] protesters as girls and their subjugation to father-like figures ...[T]he press ... infantilized the protesters by referring to them as "the girls" ... and by using their first names rather than referring to them by their family names as is the custom when writing about political figures ..."[11]

^Graells-Garrido, Lalmas and Menczer (2015): "Sex-related content is more frequent in women biographies than men's, while cognition-related content is more highlighted in men biographies than women's."[18]

^Wagner et al. (2015): "[I]n the English Wikipedia an article about a notable person that mentions that the person is divorced is 4.4 times more likely to be about a woman rather than a man. We observe similar results in all six language editions. For example, in the German Wikipedia an article that mentions that a person is divorced is 4.7 times more likely about a woman, in the Russian Wikipedia its 4.8 times more likely about a woman and in the Spanish, Italian and French Wikipedia it is 4.2 times more likely about a women. This example shows that a lexical bias is indeed present on Wikipedia and can be observed consistently across different language editions. This result is in line with (Bamman and Smith 2014) who also observed that in the English Wikipedia biographies of women disproportionately focus on marriage and divorce compared to those of men."[20]

^Wagner et al. (2015): "[W]omen on Wikipedia tend to be more linked to men than vice versa, which can put women at a disadvantage in terms of—for example—visibility or reachability on Wikipedia. In addition, we find that women's romantic relationships and family-related issues are much more frequently discussed in their Wikipedia articles than in articles on men. This suggests differences in how the Wikipedia community conceptualizes notable men and women. Because modern search and recommendation algorithms exploit both structural and lexical information on Wikipedia, women might be discriminated when it comes to ranking articles about notable people. To reduce such effects, the editor community could pay particular attention to the gender balance of links included in articles about men and women, and could adopt a more gender-balanced vocabulary when writing articles about notable people."[21]

Miller, Casey and Swift, Kate (1980). The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing for Writers, Editors and Speakers. New York: Lippincott and Crowell.

McConnell-Ginet, Sally (1984). "The origins of sexist language in discourse", in S. J. White and V. Teller (eds.). Discourse and Reading in Linguistics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 123–135.